Prompt Action Irrespective Of Religion Ensures No Hate Crimes, Justice KM Joseph Says On His Last Hearing Day Of Case

Yesterday (May 17), was the last day of the hearing of the hate speech and hate crime matters before the bench led by Justice KM Joseph, as the Supreme Court judge is set to retire on June 16 (May 19 is his last working day before Court closes for summer vacations).During the previous hearings in the case, Justice Joseph has expressed serious concerns about the rise in hate speeches and the inaction of authorities against it. The bench led by him has passed significant directions that police in all States and UTs should take suo motu action against hate speech offences, irrespective of religion, without waiting for any formal complaint."I do not think anyone has any interest other than the best interest of our nation. The only point is, when you take action promptly - irrespective of religion, irrespective of anything else - and just make [India] into a country ruled by the rule of law. There will be no problems", Justice Joseph said on Thursday. The bench led by him was dealing with a batch of petitions seeking directions to regulate hate speech and also another petition filed by an individual who alleged inaction by Noida police in investigating a hate crime committed against him.To tackle the growing menace of hate crimes, especially against minorities, the directions issued by the Supreme Court to curb hate speech would have to be extended to hate crimes as well, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi suggested on Tuesday.The senior lawyer was appearing a plea by a Muslim sexagenarian claiming that he was a victim of a hate crime in July 2021. Not only this, but the elderly Muslim man also alleged that he had to run from pillar to post for the police to take cognisance, which finally concluded that the crime committed against him was not a hate crime, but a simple theft."I am certain when the matter is taken up on the next occasion, it will be taken to its logical conclusion," Justice Joseph replied to Ahmadi's suggestion to extend the court's directions regarding hate speech to hate crime. The senior counsel also expressed his gratefulness for the intervention of the top court, saying, "Everything started moving only after this court demanded to see the case diary. After that, the State acknowledged that there was a crime and registered an FIR. I am grateful." However, before concluding, he pointed out that certain sections had not been included in the FIR which ought to have been included. He also told the bench that he had prepared a note on the issue of awarding compensation for the delay in registering a police complaint. Ahmadi further said:"There is a preambular promise of fraternity. That is what was impinged upon here. Registering an FIR in respect of a hate crime promptly is also in aid of that particular goal."The senior counsel also requested the bench to hear this matter separately. "The issue of hate speech is diverse from this issue," he said. The matter was adjourned to August 4. The other batch of hate speech cases was also adjourned to August (separate report about hearing in that matter can be read here).Background In July 2021, 62-year-old Kazeem Ahmad, a resident of Delhi’s Zakir Nagar, was allegedly waylaid, assaulted, and looted by four persons in Noida. The elderly Muslim man has claimed that he was specifically targeted because of his religion and was a victim of a hate crime. He has also accused the Uttar Pradesh police of inaction, saying that despite visiting his house, police personnel refused to accept his written complaint. Subsequently, Ahmad moved the Supreme Court, seeking action against the erring officers as well as compensation for victims of hate crime. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi pointed out before a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna that the state government, while recording the crime as a ‘theft’, refused to register it as a hate crime. “There is hesitancy on the part of the state government to register these crimes. They want to bring down the number of these crimes so that the criminal record shows that there are no hate crimes,” the senior counsel told the bench. However, senior advocate and UP additional advocate-general Garima Prashad vehemently objected to this claim, saying, “This itself is a media-driven allegation and case.” Upon investigation, she claimed, no evidence was found suggesting that religious slurs or manhandling was involved. "How did the police come to the conclusion that this was a case of theft? Were there witnesses? Do you have the case diary?” the bench asked the law officer, who replied that the government had verified everything and filed a detailed counter-affidavit. She also emphasised that the entire investigation was carried out by the Delhi police and that allegedly there were contradictions in Ahmad’s statements. However, the opposing counsel exclaimed, “The attitude of the state is that the victim is a liar.” He also said that the police routinely discouraged people from filing such...

Prompt Action Irrespective Of Religion Ensures No Hate Crimes, Justice KM Joseph Says On His Last Hearing Day Of Case

Awstika Das

Tags